Verdict
• concise 250-300 words (word count excludes quoted material)
• states clearly why Position 1 or Position 2 ‘won’ the trial
• use at least one piece of textual support that was key to the winning argument
Was the following statement PROVED OR DISPROVED in the trial?
“The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters.”
I think that Position 2 'won' the case. They certainly did a better job cooperating with each other and coming with up solid evidence. Clearly, they were more prepared and had planned out how things would go. One thing I didn't like was that Position 2 did not address the fact that what the discussion was about "the world" not "life" or "personal enjoyment." In that perspective, that they did not address the topic correctly, they did a bad job. But besides that, their lawyers did a good job on making leading questions though sometimes they were a bit too much. They could have given more time for the witnesses to talk. The witnesses were well prepared and had quotes and proof to back up their statements. They did a good job answering questions during cross examination. For example the witness who played Unferth did a good job on defending his point on the quote “ You talk heroism as noble language, dignity. It’s more than that, as my coming here has proved. no man above us will ever know whterh Unferth died here or fled to the hills like a coward. Only you and I and God will know the truth. That’s inner heroism.” Position 1 did a poor job in communicating with each other, while Position 2 supported each other, people on Position 1 were contradicting themselves and such. Position 1 lawyers also failed in asking questions that really got the weak points in Position 2. Our points were used against us. For example, position 2 asked us "If you live and sit on gold for happiness that means there is meaning to life because you live to be happy, right?". That question really hit our weakspot and position 1 lawyers couldn't respond to it. In the end I believe that the statement was disproved.
• concise 250-300 words (word count excludes quoted material)
• states clearly why Position 1 or Position 2 ‘won’ the trial
• use at least one piece of textual support that was key to the winning argument
Was the following statement PROVED OR DISPROVED in the trial?
“The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters.”
I think that Position 2 'won' the case. They certainly did a better job cooperating with each other and coming with up solid evidence. Clearly, they were more prepared and had planned out how things would go. One thing I didn't like was that Position 2 did not address the fact that what the discussion was about "the world" not "life" or "personal enjoyment." In that perspective, that they did not address the topic correctly, they did a bad job. But besides that, their lawyers did a good job on making leading questions though sometimes they were a bit too much. They could have given more time for the witnesses to talk. The witnesses were well prepared and had quotes and proof to back up their statements. They did a good job answering questions during cross examination. For example the witness who played Unferth did a good job on defending his point on the quote “ You talk heroism as noble language, dignity. It’s more than that, as my coming here has proved. no man above us will ever know whterh Unferth died here or fled to the hills like a coward. Only you and I and God will know the truth. That’s inner heroism.” Position 1 did a poor job in communicating with each other, while Position 2 supported each other, people on Position 1 were contradicting themselves and such. Position 1 lawyers also failed in asking questions that really got the weak points in Position 2. Our points were used against us. For example, position 2 asked us "If you live and sit on gold for happiness that means there is meaning to life because you live to be happy, right?". That question really hit our weakspot and position 1 lawyers couldn't respond to it. In the end I believe that the statement was disproved.